Apple (AAPL)

Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc. (formerly Slattery v. Apple Computer, Inc.)

The original plaintiff (Slattery) filed this purported class action on January 3, 2005 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging various claims including alleged unlawful tying of music purchased on the iTunes Store with the purchase of iPods and vice versa and unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market power.  Plaintiff’s complaint alleged violations of §§1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. §§1 and 2), California Business & Professions Code §16700 et seq. (the Cartwright Act), California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), common law unjust enrichment and common law monopolization. Plaintiff sought unspecified damages and other relief.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss on February 10, 2005.  On September 9, 2005, the Court denied the motion in part and granted it in part. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 23, 2005 and the Company filed an answer on October 18, 2005.  On May 8, 2006, the Court heard plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint to substitute two new plaintiffs for Slattery.  In August 2006, the court dismissed Slattery without prejudice and allowed plaintiffs to file an amended complaint naming two new plaintiffs (Charoensak and Rosen). On November 2, 2006, the Company filed an answer to the amended complaint denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The hearing on class certification is set for April 16, 2007.  The Court scheduled a hearing on March 5, 2007 to determine whether to consolidate this case with Tucker v. Apple Computer, Inc.

Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc. (formerly Slattery v. Apple Computer, Inc.)

The original Plaintiff (Slattery) filed this purported class action on January 3, 2005 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging various claims including alleged unlawful tying of music purchased on the iTunes Store with the purchase of iPods and vice versa and unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market power. Plaintiff’s complaint alleged violations of §§1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. §§1 and 2), California Business and Professions Code §16700 et seq. (the Cartwright Act), California Business and Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), common law unjust enrichment and common law monopolization. Plaintiff sought unspecified damages and other relief. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on February 10, 2005. On September 9, 2005, the Court denied the motion in part and granted it in part. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 23, 2005 and the Company filed an answer on October 18, 2005. On May 8, 2006, the Court heard Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint to substitute two new plaintiffs for Slattery. In August 2006, the court dismissed Slattery without prejudice and allowed plaintiffs to file an amended complaint naming two new plaintiffs (Charoensak and Rosen). On November 2, 2006, the Company filed an answer to the amended complaint denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The hearing on class certification is set for April 16, 2007.

Charoensak v. Apple
Computer, Inc. (formerly Slattery v. Apple Computer, Inc.)

The original Plaintiff
(Slattery) filed this purported class action on January 3, 2005 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging
various claims including alleged unlawful tying of music purchased on the
iTunes Store with the purchase of iPods and vice versa and unlawful acquisition
or maintenance of monopoly market power. Plaintiff’s complaint alleged
violations of §§1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. §§1 and 2), California
Business and Professions Code §16700 et seq. (the Cartwright Act), California
Business and Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), common law unjust
enrichment and common law monopolization. Plaintiff sought unspecified damages
and other relief. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on February 10,
2005. On September 9, 2005, the Court denied the motion in part and granted
it in part. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 23, 2005 and
the Company filed an answer on October 18, 2005. On May 8, 2006, the
Court heard Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint to
substitute two new plaintiffs for Slattery. In August 2006, the court
dismissed Slattery without prejudice and allowed plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint naming two new plaintiffs (Charoensak and Rosen). On November 2,
2006, the Company filed an answer to the amended complaint denying all material
allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The hearing on class
certification is set for April 16, 2007.

Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc. (formerly Slattery v. Apple Computer, Inc.)

The original Plaintiff (Slattery) filed this purported class action on January 3, 2005 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging various claims including alleged unlawful tying of music purchased on the iTunes Store with the purchase of iPods and vice versa and unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market power.  Plaintiff’s complaint alleged violations of §§1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. §§1 and 2), California Business and Professions Code §16700 et seq. (the Cartwright Act), California Business and Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), common law unjust enrichment and common law monopolization. Plaintiff sought unspecified damages and other relief.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss on February 10, 2005.  On September 9, 2005, the Court denied the motion in part and granted it in part. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 23, 2005 and the Company filed an answer on October 18, 2005.  On May 8, 2006, the Court heard Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint to substitute two new plaintiffs for Slattery.  In August 2006, the court dismissed Slattery without prejudice and allowed plaintiffs to file an amended complaint naming two new plaintiffs (Charoensak and Rosen). On November 2, 2006, the Company filed an answer to the amended complaint denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The hearing on class certification is set for April 16, 2007.